Erikson was always brought in to lose. It's a well known fact that he was always called up to fight last minute with very little time to prepare for his fights. Had he been given the same opportunities as lesnar I'm sure he'd have gold wrapped around his waste at one point in his career.
Also Erikson was a HW fighter that wrestled at HW internationally unlike Kerr, Coleman and Randleman…big difference.

Lesnar was a modern world champion. Kerr was a blown up 190 pounder. So was Coleman. Now Erikson was a big guy who could wrestle, but he wasn't one-tenth the athlete Lesnar was. Nor did he have close to the same level of conditioning.

Who did Erikson ever beat? Couture? Carwin? Herring? Mir? Everyone Erikson beat, Brock would have beaten in less than 2;00.

Brock is not close to the wrestling skills of Kerr or Coleman - and not only was Erikson a better and much more accomplished wrestler, he also achieved those credentials at HW, unlike Kerr and Coleman (who were at 100kg). The only thing you could possibly say for taking Brock over Kerr and Coleman (same for young Randy) is that their wrestling creds were at a lower weight class. But really, if you know wrestling you know that wouldn't mean much - in their MMA primes both guys weighed 240+ and should be able to put Brock on his back and stuff his takedowns, at least early (both had some cardio issues - but this was generally against "tough" guys that could take a beating, something I don't think Brock qualifies well as; what Carwin landed against him has always been very overstated).

Fighters of this era are in general significantly superior to the pre-2000 era - although saying they "couldn't touch" modern fighters is a huge exaggeration, and also it doesn't really apply to Kerr and Coleman, who clearly had talents that would translate well. Calling Kerr a "blown up 190 pounder" is completely stupid, he and Coleman (and Angle) wrestled internationally at 220.

Kerr was probably a better wrestler than Kurt Angle at the same weight, and obviously Angle would've been a huge favorite in amateur wrestling against Lesnar. Also people arguing for Lesnar keep bringing up what an "athlete" he is, well Kerr was probably more athletic between the two. Another aspect though is the mental toughness - Kerr was notriously shaky in this area too. But even he could take a hit better than Lesnar, and if one of them was doing the intimidating it probably would've been Kerr (Lesnar has always been prone to being nervous/panicking; in the WWF he botched a wrestlemania move due to panic, panicked in the first Mir fight when tapping to a move he himself described as loose, and everyone saw what he did has last two fights).

Kerr was basically uber-Lesnar. Better at everything, essentially. I don't see how Brock could possibly be the "on paper" favorite there. Hard to see it against Coleman too, who was slightly worse than Kerr at wrestling, but mentally tougher and very likely physically stronger than Brock, Coleman's power was just incredible.

The only thing you might be correct about is the conditioning for Erikson, he lost against Herring because he gassed (although it's worth noting he was like 36 at the time; also Herring was 22 back then and already very experienced, not a past his prime 30). Although Erikson seems like a bad style matchup for Brock, Brock is more proven than Erikson was. Something seems off about favoring Brock against someone who was better at what Brock does best - but perhaps Erikson being older was part of it. Amongst the wrestlers being discussed, he accomplished the least, and is more of a "what if" legend.

Calling Randleman a "blown up welterweight" would actually have merit, unlike trying to call Kerr a blown up 190er - however, he blew up pretty damn well. He was just beastly strong. I'd favor Lesnar there but Randleman would hardly get steamrolled, and he also hits harder (although Brock for once probably has the more technical striking).

Lesnar should be the clear favorite over Severn, yeah, but "prime" Severn never even fought MMA. He was almost 40 when he started MMA. I doubt if Lesnar started at the age Severn did, he would've been able to do anything at all.

simms - Erikson was always brought in to lose. It's a well known fact that he was always called up to fight last minute with very little time to prepare for his fights. Had he been given the same opportunities as lesnar I'm sure he'd have gold wrapped around his waste at one point in his career. Also Erikson was a HW fighter that wrestled at HW internationally unlike Kerr, Coleman and Randleman…big difference.

Took me too long to write my post, I just ended up repeating you about Erikson being a heavy :) Although I don't think Kevin competed post-college?

Interesting insights about Erikson being brought in to lose and not having time to prepare, I was unaware of this.

Lesnar was a modern world champion. Kerr was a blown up 190 pounder. So was Coleman. Now Erikson was a big guy who could wrestle, but he wasn't one-tenth the athlete Lesnar was. Nor did he have close to the same level of conditioning.

Who did Erikson ever beat? Couture? Carwin? Herring? Mir? Everyone Erikson beat, Brock would have beaten in less than 2;00.

Hard to see it against Coleman too, who was slightly worse than Kerr at wrestling, but mentally tougher and very likely physically stronger than Brock, Coleman's power was just incredible.

You might want to do some research if you think Kerr was a better wrestler than Coleman....

Lesnar was a modern world champion. Kerr was a blown up 190 pounder. So was Coleman. Now Erikson was a big guy who could wrestle, but he wasn't one-tenth the athlete Lesnar was. Nor did he have close to the same level of conditioning.

Who did Erikson ever beat? Couture? Carwin? Herring? Mir? Everyone Erikson beat, Brock would have beaten in less than 2;00.

Hard to see it against Coleman too, who was slightly worse than Kerr at wrestling, but mentally tougher and very likely physically stronger than Brock, Coleman's power was just incredible.

You might want to do some research if you think Kerr was a better wrestler than Coleman....

LMAO!! you talk about crumbling and you dont say anything about the single biggest folding chair in mma history in Kerr! LOL!!! At least Coleman was a warrior, Kerr folded every chance he got, beat a bunch of no names and when the comp stiffened, guess what? He beat NOONE.

You guys can vote me the fuck down but Ill NEVER understand the Kerr hype and why he gets soo much love on this site. And PLEASE dont try to "educate" me on the ADCC nonsense and his wrestling credentials. Meaningless. Oh here's one, bring up the whole pain killer addiction thing, maybe that will convince me, lol.

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”